Stop voting for fucking Tories

[C69]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

I believe it is customary to announce plans in a manifesto pre election
I am sure he has some plans, just being competent would do me ATM.
His approach is very much like Cameron who before office had not a jot of a plan announced but when in office unveiled anm orgy of cuts and ill conceived reforms.

[I like neeps]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

I believe it is customary to announce plans in a manifesto pre election
I am sure he has some plans, just being competent would do me ATM.
His approach is very much like Cameron who before office had not a jot of a plan announced but when in office unveiled anm orgy of cuts and ill conceived reforms.

Cameron DID have a plan and message throughout.

Cameron's mission: ideological shrinking of the state, Cameron's diagnosis of Britain: Labour has left the "credit card maxed out", we have no money, we have to cut waste, yadda yadda. Cameron's policy: austerity. All very neat and clear bundle. And all was clear before any manifesto launch.

Labour are using the same attack line, but they don't have the ideological bent to make it useful in government. Because people will vote for them mostly expecting them to be not the Tories but also to improve things.

And considering the public sector is on its knees because of lack of funding it's hard to see how things can be improved when he's gone to lengths to explain how there wont be increased taxes (apart from on private education and potentially nondoms). So then not being the Tories becomes hang on, things still suck. And then things become - oh I'll vote for new Tory leader Nigel Farage.

[Biffer]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

I believe it is customary to announce plans in a manifesto pre election
I am sure he has some plans, just being competent would do me ATM.
His approach is very much like Cameron who before office had not a jot of a plan announced but when in office unveiled anm orgy of cuts and ill conceived reforms.

Cameron DID have a plan and message throughout.

Cameron's mission: ideological shrinking of the state, Cameron's diagnosis of Britain: Labour has left the "credit card maxed out", we have no money, we have to cut waste, yadda yadda. Cameron's policy: austerity. All very neat and clear bundle. And all was clear before any manifesto launch.

Labour are using the same attack line, but they don't have the ideological bent to make it useful in government. Because people will vote for them mostly expecting them to be not the Tories but also to improve things.

And considering the public sector is on its knees because of lack of funding it's hard to see how things can be improved when he's gone to lengths to explain how there wont be increased taxes (apart from on private education and potentially nondoms). So then not being the Tories becomes hang on, things still suck. And then things become - oh I'll vote for new Tory leader Nigel Farage.

Sorry, but saying now what all your policies are is politically dumb for the Labour party in modern Britain. State general approach and aims but stick with the line that you don't know just how badly the tories are going to fuck it before you take power, and get your attack dogs ranting about how they're doing it deliberately to sabotage a future labour government at the expense of every day working people.

[_Os_]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

If Labour aren't building the biggest coalition of voters possible, which means the people you disagree with too, then they're not going to get very far. It's not ideal but that's is the logic of FPTP. The Tories have given up the middle ground, they've given up trying to win.

I never used to vote Labour because I'm not a socialist, I was a lazy Lib Dem voter (lazy because UK liberals are rubbish compared to SA liberals, and the Lib Dems are usually a disappointment). None of it seemed to matter either. Then the Lib Dems helped out with austerity, which turned out to be the "good" Tory years. Then the Tories turned the UK immigration system into a dysfunctional chaotic mess, something which has had a personal negative impact. Then Brexit. I now vote every election against the Tories, which means voting Labour a lot. Tactical anti-Tory voting is the main thing the Tories fear this election, FPTP means voters have most impact when they vote against what they hate most rather than when they vote for something.

Starmer's leadership style looks like collective decision making. Not convinced he's dictating, it looks more like someone taking the middle ground from the views around him. When they're all agreed you get a strong outcome, when they're not it's fudge. A lot of the fudge looks like competent shadow cabinet members trying to fit what the party wants into something that gives the best chance of being elected which can also be delivered on afterwards. Maybe Starmer adopts a presidential style as PM and takes helicopter rides everywhere, but he's not there yet.

[I like neeps]

I believe it is customary to announce plans in a manifesto pre election
I am sure he has some plans, just being competent would do me ATM.
His approach is very much like Cameron who before office had not a jot of a plan announced but when in office unveiled anm orgy of cuts and ill conceived reforms.

Cameron DID have a plan and message throughout.

Cameron's mission: ideological shrinking of the state, Cameron's diagnosis of Britain: Labour has left the "credit card maxed out", we have no money, we have to cut waste, yadda yadda. Cameron's policy: austerity. All very neat and clear bundle. And all was clear before any manifesto launch.

Labour are using the same attack line, but they don't have the ideological bent to make it useful in government. Because people will vote for them mostly expecting them to be not the Tories but also to improve things.

And considering the public sector is on its knees because of lack of funding it's hard to see how things can be improved when he's gone to lengths to explain how there wont be increased taxes (apart from on private education and potentially nondoms). So then not being the Tories becomes hang on, things still suck. And then things become - oh I'll vote for new Tory leader Nigel Farage.

Sorry, but saying now what all your policies are is politically dumb for the Labour party in modern Britain. State general approach and aims but stick with the line that you don't know just how badly the tories are going to fuck it before you take power, and get your attack dogs ranting about how they're doing it deliberately to sabotage a future labour government at the expense of every day working people.

Labour don't have any attack dogs. And that's a stupid line as well because you can't explain how the Tories are sabotaging a future Labour government without saying - irresponsibly low tax and spend numbers when you're telling everyone that you'll stick to their fiscal rules and won't raise tax yourself.

You can have a coherent message about the Tory government is being using the state as a vassal to enrich their mates, having policies from libertarian think tanks that have failed before, and have chronically underinvested in public services which are teetering. But then you need to propose fixes - and the Tories will steal them/papers will attack them etc etc isn't a valid defence against that. As the Tory press will attack them in govt if they keep them a secret (uturns as usual) and the election will be within a year so even if the Tories do steal them they won't improve things enough for a bounce. And as said, they are already announcing policies anyway, they're just disregarding most of them.

[Biffer]

Cameron DID have a plan and message throughout.

Cameron's mission: ideological shrinking of the state, Cameron's diagnosis of Britain: Labour has left the "credit card maxed out", we have no money, we have to cut waste, yadda yadda. Cameron's policy: austerity. All very neat and clear bundle. And all was clear before any manifesto launch.

Labour are using the same attack line, but they don't have the ideological bent to make it useful in government. Because people will vote for them mostly expecting them to be not the Tories but also to improve things.

And considering the public sector is on its knees because of lack of funding it's hard to see how things can be improved when he's gone to lengths to explain how there wont be increased taxes (apart from on private education and potentially nondoms). So then not being the Tories becomes hang on, things still suck. And then things become - oh I'll vote for new Tory leader Nigel Farage.

Sorry, but saying now what all your policies are is politically dumb for the Labour party in modern Britain. State general approach and aims but stick with the line that you don't know just how badly the tories are going to fuck it before you take power, and get your attack dogs ranting about how they're doing it deliberately to sabotage a future labour government at the expense of every day working people.

Labour don't have any attack dogs. And that's a stupid line as well because you can't explain how the Tories are sabotaging a future Labour government without saying - irresponsibly low tax and spend numbers when you're telling everyone that you'll stick to their fiscal rules and won't raise tax yourself.

You can have a coherent message about the Tory government is being using the state as a vassal to enrich their mates, having policies from libertarian think tanks that have failed before, and have chronically underinvested in public services which are teetering. But then you need to propose fixes - and the Tories will steal them/papers will attack them etc etc isn't a valid defence against that. As the Tory press will attack them in govt if they keep them a secret (uturns as usual) and the election will be within a year so even if the Tories do steal them they won't improve things enough for a bounce. And as said, they are already announcing policies anyway, they're just disregarding most of them.

You're living in the past if you think the Labour party can do politics like that nowadays without being ripped apart in advance of the election. You have to wait and let the tories continue what they're doing, let them fall apart and continue to be arseholes. All you need to do is portray a vague idea of competence in comparison to them.

It'd be nice if politics was based on policies like it used to be, but it's not.

[_Os_]

1. Imagine a situation where the state has misunderstood its own nationality laws for 20 years. That state has either wrongly issued passports to tens of thousands of people and will now have to take them back. Or has wrongly denied citizenship to tens of thousands of others.
2. Inevitably, it is the British state we're talking about. Those affected are children of EU citizens where the parent from whom British citizenship was derived did not have formal settled status. Children who can claim British citizenship from another parent are not affected.
3. Before 2 October 2000, the Home Office thought that all EU citizens living and working in the UK were "settled" for the purposes of British nationality law, therefore their children born in the UK after 1/1/83 were British.
4. The Home Office changed its mind with effect from 2 October 2000 and decided that EU citizens needed to have been granted indefinite leave to remain to be "settled". But the law had not changed, the Home Office just changed its interpretation of the law.
5. The High Court has found that the Home Office couldn't be right both before 2 October 2000 and after. Either those born between 1/1/83 and 31/12/20 were all not British or they all were British, irrespective of whether the parent had formal settled status.
6. The court decided that they were all not British. The Home Office had been wrongly recognising as British the affected children born before 2/10/00. Their status is now unclear. There may be an appeal, so this may not be the final word.
7. If the outcome stays the same, logic suggests they aren't in truth British citizens even though they may have been issued with passports. Passports are evidence of nationality, they don't confer it. Passports can be (and are) wrongly issued and then have to be withdrawn.
8. If the outcome is reversed (the Home Office was right before 2/10/00 and wrong after) then tens of thousands of children of EU citizens born since then were wrongly charged registration fees or denied citizenship. The parents would not have needed ILR or permanent residence.
9. My write up here. I'm not sure I've explained it clearly in this thread or in the blog post. It's a really complicated issue. But it looks like a monumental, epic screw up by the Home Office, which has simply buried its head in the sand for years.

https://freemovement.org.uk/high-court- ... -citizens/

Windrush MK2 is loading.

To be clear what this will mean, if it goes through. Anyone born in the UK to two EU citizen parents between 1983 and 2020, will be stripped of their British citizenship (because their parents would've been very unlikely to have ILR when they were born, as their parents would've been using free movement to come to the UK and not subject to visa control, IRL would be a pointless thing for them to get). What this will mean is potentially thousands of people in their adulthood who have only ever lived in the UK, will suddenly find themselves unable to work, unable to access benefits or the NHS, stateless, applying for non-UK citizenship (they may or may not qualify for), and having to prove they've lived in the UK for the past 5 years (that essentially depends on Home Office discretion regardless what evidence is provided) to acquire ILR in their new non-UK passport. The lead times on all those processes (potentially years), will simply mean some people without strong family/friend connections they can rely on (potentially for years) end up on the street or dead ... and I'm not exaggerating.

Immigration/citizenship law needs urgent attention in the UK, and not in the way Tory Home Secretaries bang on about. No one in the system (courts/Home Office/experts) really knows how it works and interpretation changes often, a total mess.

Adult woman born in the UK, who has a British birth certificate and has only ever lived in the UK. Discovers that she is not considered British by the Home Office when she tries to get a job/obtain a British passport. The Home Office order her to leave the UK. Her mother who is Portuguese has settled status (presumably after the birth of her daughter).
https://news.sky.com/story/woman-22-fac ... e-13070230

At a minimum there's tens of thousands of people in this situation if they know it yet or not. Anyone with experience of the system would've known a year ago it was possible. UK government AWOL as per normal. I'm sure it plays well with some Tory voters.

[I like neeps]

Sorry, but saying now what all your policies are is politically dumb for the Labour party in modern Britain. State general approach and aims but stick with the line that you don't know just how badly the tories are going to fuck it before you take power, and get your attack dogs ranting about how they're doing it deliberately to sabotage a future labour government at the expense of every day working people.

Labour don't have any attack dogs. And that's a stupid line as well because you can't explain how the Tories are sabotaging a future Labour government without saying - irresponsibly low tax and spend numbers when you're telling everyone that you'll stick to their fiscal rules and won't raise tax yourself.

You can have a coherent message about the Tory government is being using the state as a vassal to enrich their mates, having policies from libertarian think tanks that have failed before, and have chronically underinvested in public services which are teetering. But then you need to propose fixes - and the Tories will steal them/papers will attack them etc etc isn't a valid defence against that. As the Tory press will attack them in govt if they keep them a secret (uturns as usual) and the election will be within a year so even if the Tories do steal them they won't improve things enough for a bounce. And as said, they are already announcing policies anyway, they're just disregarding most of them.

You're living in the past if you think the Labour party can do politics like that nowadays without being ripped apart in advance of the election. You have to wait and let the tories continue what they're doing, let them fall apart and continue to be arseholes. All you need to do is portray a vague idea of competence in comparison to them.

It'd be nice if politics was based on policies like it used to be, but it's not.

I mean that's fine to think that. But one problem; they're being ripped apart in the press today, yesterday, tomorrow, and every day anyway. And they'll get ripped apart everyday of campaigning. Oh and that continues when they're elected.

And as said, the issue of "vague competence" comes apart when in government and without a plan to fix any of the problems. Leading to a more extreme politics, sadly.

[Jockaline]

I suspect the timing of these leaks left them in a difficult position as they were released by the Mail after the deadline for withdrawing candidates in the by-election had passed (probably deliberately). This left Labour with a choice of getting him to apologise and defending him or going into the by-election without a candidate.

It was only when they realised that there was further evidence of more clearly antisemitic comments from him that they withdrew support for him.

I expect that they were also initially reluctant to withdraw from the by-election because the last thing they wanted to do was make it easier for George Galloway to gain another by-election victory at their expense.

No doubt it's a great trap that the Mail set.

And the Mail have done what they wanted to - shown factionalism, double standards, poor political instincts within the Labour leadership.

I don't agree that it shows poor political instincts, they don't want Galloway winning in Rochdale to overshadow a potential win in Wellingborough, so they backed him hoping that it'd blow over. I don't have a problem with the political thinking, what worries me more is that these remarks were apparently made some time ago to a room full of other Labour members and nobody thought they ought to warn the higher ups that their candidate is a raging antisemite. Or even worse they all thought it was normal....

What was it he said that made him a raging antisemite in your mind exactly.

[Biffer]

Labour don't have any attack dogs. And that's a stupid line as well because you can't explain how the Tories are sabotaging a future Labour government without saying - irresponsibly low tax and spend numbers when you're telling everyone that you'll stick to their fiscal rules and won't raise tax yourself.

You can have a coherent message about the Tory government is being using the state as a vassal to enrich their mates, having policies from libertarian think tanks that have failed before, and have chronically underinvested in public services which are teetering. But then you need to propose fixes - and the Tories will steal them/papers will attack them etc etc isn't a valid defence against that. As the Tory press will attack them in govt if they keep them a secret (uturns as usual) and the election will be within a year so even if the Tories do steal them they won't improve things enough for a bounce. And as said, they are already announcing policies anyway, they're just disregarding most of them.

You're living in the past if you think the Labour party can do politics like that nowadays without being ripped apart in advance of the election. You have to wait and let the tories continue what they're doing, let them fall apart and continue to be arseholes. All you need to do is portray a vague idea of competence in comparison to them.

It'd be nice if politics was based on policies like it used to be, but it's not.

I mean that's fine to think that. But one problem; they're being ripped apart in the press today, yesterday, tomorrow, and every day anyway. And they'll get ripped apart everyday of campaigning. Oh and that continues when they're elected.

And as said, the issue of "vague competence" comes apart when in government and without a plan to fix any of the problems. Leading to a more extreme politics, sadly.

Because they put explicit policies out and then had to change them as the governmental position worsened.


If they’d said they were going to invest in green industry, but the final figure couldn’t be certain until they were clear just how much the Tories fucked the economy before they leave, that’s a more defendable position.

[C69]

"It's the economy stupid"

Cheers Sunak you have driven us into recession.
Where is the economic growth you useless cnuts?

[Biffer]

Yay recession.

With Hunt and Sunak having tried to take credit for inflation coming down, saying it’s to do with their economic management, we’ll obviously see a screeching u turn where now an economic down turn is obviously nothing to do with their economic management. Fucking shower of cunts.

[dpedin]

Yay recession.

With Hunt and Sunak having tried to take credit for inflation coming down, saying it’s to do with their economic management, we’ll obviously see a screeching u turn where now an economic down turn is obviously nothing to do with their economic management. Fucking shower of cunts.

What's even worse than the headline GDP figure is the GDP per capita figures



So in effect for the last few years we have been able to maintain GDP for UK Ltd by growing the population whilst GDP per capita was falling. Of course MR Hunt will ignore this and talk about squiggly lines or something!

[Hal Jordan]

Yay recession.

With Hunt and Sunak having tried to take credit for inflation coming down, saying it’s to do with their economic management, we’ll obviously see a screeching u turn where now an economic down turn is obviously nothing to do with their economic management. Fucking shower of cunts.

Hunt has already blamed it on inflation and interest rates.

[petej]

Immigration is the only thing propping up the Tories economic shit show.

[fishfoodie]

You stupid people !!

Don't you know that the really important issue is inheritance taxes ? That's what the Chancellor is correctly focused on.

[Paddington Bear]

Immigration is the only thing propping up the Tories economic shit show.

I’d all but guarantee the immigration we’ve experienced post-covid has been a significant net loss to UK plc

[dpedin]

Immigration is the only thing propping up the Tories economic shit show.

I’d all but guarantee the immigration we’ve experienced post-covid has been a significant net loss to UK plc

That's a very strange thing to assert without any evidence to back it up!

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Immigration is the only thing propping up the Tories economic shit show.

I’d all but guarantee the immigration we’ve experienced post-covid has been a significant net loss to UK plc

That's a very strange thing to assert without any evidence to back it up!

Brexit benefits tend to be... harmful as benefits go

[Paddington Bear]

Immigration is the only thing propping up the Tories economic shit show.

I’d all but guarantee the immigration we’ve experienced post-covid has been a significant net loss to UK plc

That's a very strange thing to assert without any evidence to back it up!

It’s been discussed on here a number of times before. To start with, I’d recommend looking up what percentage of visas given out since covid are for work

[petej]

Immigration is the only thing propping up the Tories economic shit show.

I’d all but guarantee the immigration we’ve experienced post-covid has been a significant net loss to UK plc

Not going to disagree. I assume that is due to replacing skilled immigrants with less skilled immigrants.

[robmatic]

I’d all but guarantee the immigration we’ve experienced post-covid has been a significant net loss to UK plc

That's a very strange thing to assert without any evidence to back it up!

It’s been discussed on here a number of times before. To start with, I’d recommend looking up what percentage of visas given out since covid are for work

To be fair, the easiest way to come to the UK if you are actually a skilled worker/have decent earning potential is to enrol your spouse on a cheap postgraduate course and then benefit from having an unrestricted right to work as their dependant.

[_Os_]

How does the UK officially being in recession impact the GE date? The per capita numbers indicate a deepening recession, a growing hole reaching -0.6% in Q4 of 2023. Interest rates will have to come down to get growth, but that could push up inflation.

Tory options looks like:

1. GE in May, because the Tories don't think the economy will improve maybe for years. They'll choose to fight an election where Labour can use the "Rishi's recession" line against them, because Tory lies and promises of jam tomorrow stand more chance of working now rather than later. The March/Q1 2024 GDP numbers come out on May the 10th, they'll go before then to avoid the possibility of Q1 2024 officially being negative growth, which would make selling the lies harder.

2. GE in Q4 2024, because the Tories think inflation and interest rates will come down and the UK will be out of recession by the end of the year. It would be madness to fight a GE under the cloud of officially being in recession, when they can wait.

May the 2nd the same day as the locals looks the more likely now imo.

[dpedin]

I’d all but guarantee the immigration we’ve experienced post-covid has been a significant net loss to UK plc

That's a very strange thing to assert without any evidence to back it up!

It’s been discussed on here a number of times before. To start with, I’d recommend looking up what percentage of visas given out since covid are for work

I am honestly interested in the data that supports the statement that immigration leads to a net loss to UK plc as it is contradicted from what I have recently read. For example recent data showed that 1 in 5 NHS staff are now from outside the UK and this rises 36% of all doctors and these are the highest ever levels in professional roles in the NHS. Is there reliable and contemporary data that supports the assertion that immigration leads to a significant net loss? Most of the data for previous years would suggest that immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy. The shift in balance between EEA and non EEA will have had an impact, that is true and Brexit has prevented UK employers from accessing the wider EEA labour market. The attached report suggests that even with this shift in immigration patterns it appears immigration still does more harm than good to UK economy? However it does sometimes depend how net contribution is worked out ie cost of education of immigrant dependents, etc. I am not suggesting you are wrong, rather I would be really interested to see data that says otherwise.

https://iasservices.org.uk/the-effect-o ... k-economy/

[dpedin]

How does the UK officially being in recession impact the GE date? The per capita numbers indicate a deepening recession, a growing hole reaching -0.6% in Q4 of 2023. Interest rates will have to come down to get growth, but that could push up inflation.

Tory options looks like:

1. GE in May, because the Tories don't think the economy will improve maybe for years. They'll choose to fight an election where Labour can use the "Rishi's recession" line against them, because Tory lies and promises of jam tomorrow stand more chance of working now rather than later. The March/Q1 2024 GDP numbers come out on May the 10th, they'll go before then to avoid the possibility of Q1 2024 officially being negative growth, which would make selling the lies harder.

2. GE in Q4 2024, because the Tories think inflation and interest rates will come down and the UK will be out of recession by the end of the year. It would be madness to fight a GE under the cloud of officially being in recession, when they can wait.

May the 2nd the same day as the locals looks the more likely now imo.

My money is on a May election. There's nothing in the pipeline that would suggest it will get better for the Tories. The improving weather will mean more boats across the channel, NHS waiting lists will continue to remain high, borrowing will continue to grow given increasing loss of confidence in the UK and growth is obviously anaemic or non existent. More time will lead to more Tory gaffes and more MPs standing down plus increased jostling amongst the right wing nutters getting ready to pounce once the Squatter has been ousted. Also we have even more Covid Enquiry hearings etc to come including that on procurement in 2024. Why prolong the agony? They have already given Labour access to the Civil Servants and the financial books. I believe they will go for a snap election in May and really focus on culture wars, antisemitism in the Labour Party and have the media barons ready to unleash a pile of shite on Starmer et al. It will be very very dirty and very acrimonious. Remember a number of these Tories fully expect to be held to account for various scandals ie PPE, Teeside, etc and are shitting themselves, Mone is just the tip of the iceberg.

[_Os_]

My money is on a May election.

Bookies still have an October-December GE as the heavy favourite, April-June is the second favourite. A double of a May GE and the Tories going under 165 seats is at about 14/1. I had never looked at these markets before, the odds are a bit rubbish and nearly exactly the same on: the Tories losing 151-200 seats compared to their 2019 GE result (giving them 165-214 seats), losing 201 or more seats (giving them under 165), winning less than 100 seats.

Extraordinary.

[C69]

How does the UK officially being in recession impact the GE date? The per capita numbers indicate a deepening recession, a growing hole reaching -0.6% in Q4 of 2023. Interest rates will have to come down to get growth, but that could push up inflation.

Tory options looks like:

1. GE in May, because the Tories don't think the economy will improve maybe for years. They'll choose to fight an election where Labour can use the "Rishi's recession" line against them, because Tory lies and promises of jam tomorrow stand more chance of working now rather than later. The March/Q1 2024 GDP numbers come out on May the 10th, they'll go before then to avoid the possibility of Q1 2024 officially being negative growth, which would make selling the lies harder.

2. GE in Q4 2024, because the Tories think inflation and interest rates will come down and the UK will be out of recession by the end of the year. It would be madness to fight a GE under the cloud of officially being in recession, when they can wait.

May the 2nd the same day as the locals looks the more likely now imo.

My money is on a May election. There's nothing in the pipeline that would suggest it will get better for the Tories. The improving weather will mean more boats across the channel, NHS waiting lists will continue to remain high, borrowing will continue to grow given increasing loss of confidence in the UK and growth is obviously anaemic or non existent. More time will lead to more Tory gaffes and more MPs standing down plus increased jostling amongst the right wing nutters getting ready to pounce once the Squatter has been ousted. Also we have even more Covid Enquiry hearings etc to come including that on procurement in 2024. Why prolong the agony? They have already given Labour access to the Civil Servants and the financial books. I believe they will go for a snap election in May and really focus on culture wars, antisemitism in the Labour Party and have the media barons ready to unleash a pile of shite on Starmer et al. It will be very very dirty and very acrimonious. Remember a number of these Tories fully expect to be held to account for various scandals ie PPE, Teeside, etc and are shitting themselves, Mone is just the tip of the iceberg.

I think if they go down the antisemitism route they will be eviscerated. Starmer's wife is a Jew and his children are following their mothers faith iirc they go to a faith based school.
The Tory major of Salisbury (?) was suspended today over anti-Semitism as well. It's a dangerous game to play
May will be about the time the whole of the NHS will be going to bring pay into the public domain. The RCN were seriously burnt over their unilateral negotiations last year and will want to see progress.
That said I believe the PRB will drag it's heals a little.
Hunt today praised the UK economy at a time when we moved into recession. Group Think in action.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I think they might go early. Budget sounds like it'll have cuts to public services to justify tax cuts. they're not going to want time for people to notice they will not have said how and where the cuts will come (bar maybe in the 'future'), nor to consider just how much worse services are and will get.

In essence they're going to try a moderate version of a Liz Truss budget and hope either not enough people call them on their BS or Labout inherit the mess and are blamed for Hunt and Sunak taking a heavy yet somehow still diarrhoea laden shit on the steps of Nos. 10 & 11 on the way out

At minimum you'd think they're going to claim they'll slow the rate of increases to public sector funding, and services are already collapsing with industrial action afoot. But given they're so far behind they might as well go full on unicorn again and hope it worked as with Brexit

[Paddington Bear]

Their only hope is pulling a rabbit from the hat in the budget, then going fast. Anything else just prolongs the agony

[I like neeps]

I think they might go early. Budget sounds like it'll have cuts to public services to justify tax cuts. they're not going to want time for people to notice they will not have said how and where the cuts will come (bar maybe in the 'future'), nor to consider just how much worse services are and will get.

In essence they're going to try a moderate version of a Liz Truss budget and hope either not enough people call them on their BS or Labout inherit the mess and are blamed for Hunt and Sunak taking a heavy yet somehow still diarrhoea laden shit on the steps of Nos. 10 & 11 on the way out

At minimum you'd think they're going to claim they'll slow the rate of increases to public sector funding, and services are already collapsing with industrial action afoot. But given they're so far behind they might as well go full on unicorn again and hope it worked as with Brexit

Announce tax cuts funded by public sector cuts forcing Labour into campaigning on rising taxes (even if to the level you've just cut).

[Hal Jordan]

Their only hope is pulling a rabbit from the hat in the budget, then going fast. Anything else just prolongs the agony

But also prolongs the flow of money to the chums to help outgoing MPs secure jobs post election. Plus Sunak basically using the public purse to divert as much money to his family as possible.

[sockwithaticket]

Yep. I think they'll string it out as long as possible because they know making the gravyboat of public money accessible to doners/mates/family will be off the table for at least 5 years once the ballots are cast. No point in hastening that by 5/6 months.

[_Os_]

Anonymous account of a photo journo.

[C69]

Massive losses for the Tories overnight. Lets see them defend this lol

[Oxbow]

Wellingborough is the constituency next to mine, even though I didn't have a vote I had several leaflets about the Labour candidate come through my letterbox, but absolutely nothing from the Tories. I think they gave up on winning the seat the moment Bone got deselected.

[dpedin]

Wellingborough is the constituency next to mine, even though I didn't have a vote I had several leaflets about the Labour candidate come through my letterbox, but absolutely nothing from the Tories. I think they gave up on winning the seat the moment Bone got deselected.

.. and once the local party decided his new partner who he left his wife for would be their candidate! Something about lipstick on a pig?

[C69]

Loving the Tory Chairman stating it was a bad night for Labour and ..... antisemitism.
He should have been hammered and the Sacked Tory Salisbury Major's antisemitism raised.
But hey tbh I don't think anyone not being able to see a doctor or dentist or facing massive bills will change their vote because of antisemitism or Islamophobia.

[sturginho]

Labour's election strategy has been leaked, this is huge!

[sturginho]

Wellingborough is the constituency next to mine, even though I didn't have a vote I had several leaflets about the Labour candidate come through my letterbox, but absolutely nothing from the Tories. I think they gave up on winning the seat the moment Bone got deselected.

.. and once the local party decided his new partner who he left his wife for would be their candidate! Something about lipstick on a pig?

Somebody call Cameron!

[Tichtheid]

Meanwhile

Jobcentres told to stop referring benefit claimants to food banks

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... food-banks


It reminds me of the time Atos wrote to my mate's GP to tell him to stop signing my mate off sick.